SEAOC 2012 CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS
ASCE 41-13: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit Rehabilitation of
Existing Buildings
Abstract
For the past 3 years the ASCE/SEI Standards Committee on
Seismic Rehabilitation has been working to combine ASCE
31-03 into ASCE 41-06 while also updating both standards.
The result of that humongous effort is the soon-to-be released
ASCE 41-13: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing
Buildings. The new combined standard has eliminated any
inconsistencies that previously existed between the two
standards. Now the user decides if they want to go forward
with lower performance objectives traditionally used for
existing buildings, as was the case within ASCE 31 or an
equivalent hazard to a new building, similar to the Basic
Safety Objective in ASCE 41. In addition, the Tier 1
checklists have been significantly modified and reorganized.
The use deficiency-only procedures (Tier 2) have been
greatly expanded to regular buildings of greater heights.
Plus, there have been a number of significant technical
changes including updated analysis provisions with more
emphasis on nonlinear response history analysis, provisions
for bucking restrained braced frames, expanded liquefaction
provisions, a new foundation rocking analysis procedure,
substantially updated URM provisions, and a full updated
Chapter on Seismic isolation and Energy dissipation.
Introduction
ATC 14 (1987) and FEMA 273 (1997) were both landmark
documents. Each represented major turning points in how the
profession addressed evaluating the seismic hazards posed by
existing buildings and mitigating those hazards through
retrofit. ATC 14 created the concept of screening buildings
for potential deficiencies which had been observed in similar
buildings in major earthquakes to increase a building’s risk to
life safety. FEMA 273 was the first time that “displacement-
based” methodologies were set forth and guidelines for
Robert Pekelnicky, SE
Degenkolb Engineers
San Francisco, CA
Chris Poland, SE, NAE
Degenkolb Engineers
Oakland, CA
nonlinear analysis of all types of building structures were
provided. Prior to those documents, seismic evaluation and
retrofit was left solely to the judgment of the practitioner as
he or she attempted to use standards intended for new
building design to evaluate and retrofit existing buildings.
Following the publication of both ATC 14 and FEMA 273,
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) began
to support efforts to transition those documents from
guidelines into national standards. Those efforts produced
updated documents in pre-standard form (FEMA 178, 1992;
FEMA 310, 1998; and FEMA 356, 2000). In addition to
altering the text of those documents to be enforceable
standards language, many technical updates were also
incorporated. Also, the displacement based analysis
procedures from FEMA 273 were simplified and
incorporated into FEMA 310 to bring some consistency to the
two documents.
The standardization efforts culminated with the publication of
ASCE 31-03 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings in
2003 and then in 2006 with ASCE 41-06 Seismic
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. These documents were
produced following ASCE’s standards development process,
which required significant balloting of both pre-standard
documents through a diverse committee of practitioners,
academics, and industry representatives followed by a public
comment period. All comments made throughout the process
were responded to by the ASCE/SEI Standards Committee on
Seismic Rehabilitation. In one instance significant public
comments to ASCE 41-06 led to the publication of a
supplement to that document (ASCE, 2008).
From ATC 14 through ASCE 31-03 and from FEMA 273
through ASCE 41-06, these documents have found
widespread use throughout the profession, especially in
California and within the Federal Building Standards RP4,
1
RP6 and RP 8. Regulatory agencies, such as OSHPD and
DSA, public building owners, such as the US General Service
Administration, and the Department of Veterans Affairs,
have directly referenced or permitted the use of these
documents to evaluate and retrofit existing buildings.
As the documents were used more and more, inconsistencies
were discovered between ASCE 31 and ASCE 41. Many of
the inconsistencies were intentional. The most significant
being the ingrained philosophy that existing buildings should
be given a break when being evaluated and therefore not be
held to the same standards as a new building. While another
philosophy held that if someone choses to carry out a seismic
retrofit, they should do so to a performance level
commensurate with a new building unless some other
performance objective is intentionally and explicitly chosen.
Other inconsistencies were created because of the
simplification of the ASCE 41 analysis procedures and
member acceptance criteria in ASCE 31. Lastly,
inconsistencies were created because the base documents,
ATC 14 and FEMA 273, were transitioned into standards
documents on different schedules, out of phase with each
other, with some differences in the committee membership
making those revisions.
Another issue of consternation within the profession was the
inconsistencies between ASCE 41 and ASCE 7 (2010).
Many of these inconsistencies had been known since the
publication of FEMA 273 and relate to the fundamentally
different applications of the two standards. The different
applications led to differences in procedures between the two
documents. Because ASCE 7 was written for use in the
design of new structures, it can employ “force-based”
procedures which utilize a global building ductility factor, the
R-factor, based on the details of construction. ASCE 41 uses
“displacement-based” procedures which assess the ductility
of each element action (shear, flexure, etc.) individually
because the ductility of the individual elements in the
structural system may not be consistent with each other.
Irrespective of discrepancies within procedures, the intended
performance objective for a typical Risk Category II building
is the same in ASCE 7 as the Basic Safety Objective in ASCE
41. Also, because ASCE 7 does not contain specific
guidance on the use of nonlinear analysis procedures, ASCE
41 has often been used as the basis for new building designs
which utilized nonlinear analyses.
When the standards committee met in December 2009 to
kick-off the update cycle for ASCE 31 and 41, the
aforementioned inconsistencies were at the forefront of
everyone’s mind. Another topic that garnered a lot of
discussion was a proposition to combine ASCE 31 and 41
into one standard. At that meeting, the committee broke up
into 3 subcommittees. One was tasked with looking at what
2
technical updates to ASCE 41 should be made, another was
tasked with looking at what updates and simplifications could
be made to the ASCE 31 Tier 1 screening, and the last was
tasked with determining if the documents should be
combined or stay as separate, but well-coordinated standards.
Once the ASCE 41 subcommittee determined the technical
updates needed, it created technical issue teams to address all
of those updates.
Combined Standard
The committee chose to combine the standards into one
document and coordinate the evaluation and retrofit
procedures. The combined standards retains the three-tired
approach found in ASCE 31-03, while relying on the
technical provisions in ASCE 41-06 as the basis for all the
analytical procedures.
The Tier 1 Screening is essentially the same as it was in
ASCE 31-03, with some reorganization and technical changes
to the checklists. Those changes are discussed in more detail
later in the paper. The Screening is still intended as the first
pass that one would make through the building to get familiar
with it. It is intended only to be used as an evaluation method
and not for retrofit design.
The Tier 2 “Deficiency-Based” procedure is now intended to
be used for either evaluation or retrofit. As before, the user
can go further in evaluating all the potential deficiencies
identified in the Tier 1 screening or simply chose to fix those
potential deficiencies with a retrofit design. Unlike ASCE
41-06, there is no difference in building size when a
deficiency-based retrofit can be used versus when a
deficiency-only evaluation can be performed. Previously the
retrofit requirements were significantly more restrictive.
In order to eliminate inconsistencies within the document, the
specific Tier 2 analysis procedures and ASCE 31-03m-factors
were eliminated. The user is pointed to the subsequent
sections of the standard that are used for Tier 3 for analysis
procedures and m-factors. The benefit to this is that there is
no difference between Tier 2 and Tier 3 in terms of force
demands or member acceptance criteria. The only issue with
this is that users of ASCE 31-03 who are not familiar with
ASCE 41 procedures may find it difficult at first due to all the
additional material they have to read and greater number of
possible m-factors. The committee made every possible
effort to alleviate this by providing a detailed flow chart and
specific pointers throughout the chapter that contains the Tier
2 procedures to the appropriate sections in the rest of the
standard. The benefit, of course, is a better analysis because it
is more specific.
In merging the two documents, the committee felt that the
“Full-Building” Tier 2 in ASCE 31-03 was really no different
than a systematic evaluation. Since the Tier 3 procedure was
thought to be a systematic (as opposed to deficiency-based)
evaluation or retrofit, it was felt that there was no need for
this separate procedure. Therefore the “Full-Building” Tier 2
procedure was eliminated, so Tier 2 now only refers only to
“Deficiency-Based” procedures and where one would
previously have performed a “Full-Building” Tier 2, they
now perform a Tier 3 evaluation.
The Tier 3 procedure is intended to be a systematic analysis
of the building, which can be used either for evaluation or
retrofit. The Tier 3 procedure encompasses all four analysis
(Linear Static, Linear Dynamic, Nonlinear Static, and
Nonlinear Dynamic) procedures from ASCE 41-06. The user
can chose to apply any procedure, subject to specific
limitations for each procedure. However, the permission to
use a new building design standard for Tier 3, which was
permitted in ASCE 31-03, has been eliminated because the
new building standard cannot be properly applied to an
existing building unless a completely new structural system is
provided.
The outline of the new standard is as follows:
Chapter 1 General Requirements
Chapter 2 Seismic Performance Objectives and
Ground Motions
Chapter 3 Evaluation and Retrofit Requirements
Chapter 4 Tier 1 Screening . 41-13 Chapter 2 commentary. They are:
Chapter 5 Tier 2 Deficiency-Based Evaluation and
Retrofit
Chapter 6 Tier 3 Systematic Evaluation and Retrofit
Chapter 7 Analysis Procedures and Acceptance
Criteria
Chapter 8 Foundations and Geologic Site Hazards
Chapter 9 Steel
Chapter 10 Concrete
Chapter 11 Masonry
Chapter 12 Wood and Cold-Formed Steel
Chapter 13 Architectural, Mechanical, and Electrical
Components
Chapter 14 Seismic Isolation and Energy Dissipation
Chapter 15 System-Specific Performance Procedures
Chapter 16 Tier 1 Checklists
Appendix A Guidelines for Deficiency-Based
Procedures
Appendix B Use of ASCE 41-13 within Mitigation
Programs
The new standard is based on the philosophy that
procedurally there is no difference between evaluation and
retrofit design. Retrofit design is simply evaluating a
building in an altered state and adjusting the alterations until
the building’s evaluation meets the desire performance
objective. Therefore there is no difference between a Tier 2
or Tier 3 evaluation or retrofit. The analysis procedures and
acceptance criteria are the same. If the user wishes to carry
out an evaluation or retrofit with the intention of accepting
higher risk of collapse or lesser performance, as was the case
with ASCE 31-03, then the user must now explicitly choose
a lesser seismic hazard or a lesser performance level.
New Earthquake Hazard Parameters
As discussed earlier, it has been a commonly accepted within
the profession to evaluate existing buildings to a lower force
level than new buildings. The most common way this was
carried out was to use 75% of new building design forces.
That concept was contained with ATC-14 and carried through
to ASCE 31-03. In the Tier 2 procedures in ASCE 31-03 the
75% factor was actually buried within the m-factors. Those
m-factor were approximately 1.33 (1/0.75) times their ASCE
41-06 counterparts, with some additional simplifications.
Then in the Tier 3 procedure of ASCE 31-03, the user was
explicitly directed to use a standard such as ASCE 41-06 or
ASCE 7-05 and multiply the demand forces by 0.75.
The committee agreed that the philosophy of permitting
existing buildings to be evaluated, and even upgraded, to a
lower hazard should be retained. There are a number of
reasons for this, which are discussed in detail in the ASCE
• Permitting buildings recently built to not be
immediately rendered deficient when there are
minor changes to the new design standards.
• The increased risk due to the lower hazard is
acceptable because of the presumption that an
existing building has a shorter remaining life than a
new building.
• The cost of retrofitting to achieve commensurate
performance can be disproportional to the increased
benefit as opposed to doing something to make the
building better by mitigating the most egregious
deficiencies.
With the decisions to retain the philosophy of allowing
existing buildings to be evaluated and possibly upgraded to a
lower hazard than new buildings, the question then became
what that hazard should be. While the 0.75-factor has been
engrained within the profession for many years, it is
somewhat arbitrary. The committee chose to follow the path
put forth in the 2010 California Building Code in the section
3
on accepted seismic performance for state-owned building
which utilized different return period seismic hazard
parameters instead of the 0.75-factor.
In Section 3417 of the CBC two reduced earthquake hazards
are stipulated to correspond to the BSE-1 and BSE-2 hazards
in ASCE 41-06.
In ASCE 41-06 the BSE-2 hazard is the same as the ASCE 7-
05 Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE), which is an
earthquake with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years
(a 2,475-year return period), 150% of the mean deterministic
earthquake, or some pre-determined “water-level” parameters
(see Part 2 of the 2009 NEHPR for discussion on the “water-
level” parameters). The BSE-1 is the lesser of an earthquake
with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (a 475-year
return period) or 2/3 of the BSE-2 parameters.
The committee chose to retain the BSE-X designation for the
seismic hazards. Therefore, the 5%/50 hazard was named the
BSE-2E and the 20%/50 hazard was named the BSE-1E. The
suffix “E” was introduced to designate that these are reduced
hazards associated with existing buildings.
Since ASCE 41-06 had a performance objective that was
commensurate with what was commonly accepted for new
buildings, the committee felt it important to retain the option
to have performance objectives equivalent to new buildings
standards. Therefore the committee chose to include a
second pair of seismic hazard parameters which would be the
Risk Adjusted MCE (MCER) and the Design Basis
Earthquake (DBE) from ASCE 7-10. These hazards were
named the BSE-2N and BSE-1N respectively, with the “N”
suffix indicating new building standards equivalent hazards.

The stipulated reduced hazard for existing state owned Table 1 shows the short period, SXS, parameter for the four
buildings in the 2010 CBC is an earthquake with a 5% different hazards and Table 2 shows the long period, SX1,
probability of exceedance in 50 years (a 975-year return parameter for the four different hazards. These unpublished
period) for the BSE 2 and for the BSE-1 is an earthquake results were produced by Nico Luco at USGS for the
with a 20% probability of exceedance in 50 years (a 225-year Committee.
return period).
Table 1 – Short Period Hazard Parameters
BSE-2N BSE-2E BSE-2 BSE-1N BSE-1E BSE-1
Region City
MCER 5%-50yr E/N 2/3 x MCER 20%-50yr E/N
Los Angeles 2.40 1.76 0.73 1.60 0.84 0.53
Northridge 1.69 1.46 0.87 1.13 0.81 0.72
Southern California

Long Beach 1.64 1.18 0.72 1.10 0.57 0.52

Irvine 1.55 1.04 0.67 1.03 0.53 0.52
Riverside 1.50 1.29 0.86 1.00 0.79 0.79
San Bernardino 2.37 2.39 1.01 1.58 1.28 0.81
San Luis Obispo 1.12 0.78 0.70 0.74 0.39 0.52
San Diego 1.25 0.85 0.68 0.84 0.31 0.37
Santa Barbara 2.83 2.16 0.76 1.89 0.87 0.46
Ventura 2.38 1.73 0.73 1.59 0.82 0.52
Oakland 1.86 2.14 1.15 1.24 1.19 0.96
Northern California

Concord 2.08 2.06 0.99 1.38 1.08 0.78

Monterey 1.53 1.11 0.72 1.02 0.54 0.53
Sacramento 0.67 0.45 0.67 0.45 0.27 0.60
San Francisco 1.50 1.51 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85
San Mateo 1.85 1.71 0.93 1.23 0.85 0.69
San Jose 1.50 1.58 1.05 1.00 0.97 0.97
Santa Cruz 1.52 1.23 0.81 1.01 0.67 0.67
Santa Rosa 2.51 2.39 0.95 1.67 1.02 0.61

4
 Table 2 – Long Period Hazard Parameters
BSE-2N BSE-2E BSE-2 BSE-1N BSE-1E BSE-1
Region City
MCER 5%-50yr E/N 2/3 x MCER 20%-50yr E/N
Los Angeles 0.84 0.61 0.72 0.56 0.30 0.69
Northridge 0.60 0.51 0.85 0.40 0.29 0.73
Southern California

Long Beach 0.62 0.43 0.69 0.41 0.21 0.70

Irvine 0.57 0.38 0.66 0.38 0.20 0.73
Riverside 0.60 0.51 0.85 0.40 0.30 0.75
San Bernardino 1.08 1.02 0.94 0.72 0.51 0.70
San Luis Obispo 0.43 0.30 0.71 0.28 0.15 0.70
San Diego 0.48 0.31 0.65 0.32 0.13 0.67
Santa Barbara 0.99 0.74 0.75 0.66 0.31 0.61
Ventura 0.90 0.64 0.71 0.60 0.30 0.67
Oakland 0.75 0.79 1.06 0.50 0.43 0.86
Northern California

Concord 0.73 0.71 0.97 0.49 0.37 0.75

Monterey 0.56 0.40 0.72 0.37 0.19 0.68
Sacramento 0.29 0.20 0.68 0.20 0.12 0.77
San Francisco 0.64 0.62 0.97 0.43 0.32 0.75
San Mateo 0.86 0.72 0.84 0.57 0.32 0.64
San Jose 0.60 0.55 0.92 0.40 0.33 0.82
Santa Cruz 0.60 0.46 0.77 0.40 0.24 0.69
Santa Rosa 1.04 0.97 0.94 0.69 0.40 0.60

As can be seen from the tables there are some locations
where the ratio of new to existing demand is close to .75;
showing little change. There are isolated cases where it is
higher or lower. . This is a consequence primarily of the
deterministic caps imposed on the ASCE 7-10 MCER. The
committee felt that obviously the “E” hazard should never be
greater than the “N” hazard, and thus the “E” hazards would
be capped at the “N” hazard values. The committee did not
believe that a different deterministic cap for the “E” hazards
was appropriate. For regions where there is little to no
difference between the BSE-2N and BSE-2E, it was believed
that signified the seismic hazard to be great enough that the
existing buildings should not be given the traditional break.
ASCE 41-13 Performance Objectives
The concept of marrying seismic hazard levels with structural
and nonstructural performance levels to create a performance
objective was retained in ASCE 41-13. Both ASCE 31-03
and ASCE 41-06 had various performance objectives set
forth explicitly. ASCE 41-13 has two sets of explicitly
defined performance objectives, the Basic Performance
Objective for Existing Buildings (BPOE) and the Basic
Performance Objective Equivalent to New Building
Standards (BPON). In addition to those two sets of explicit
performance objectives, ASCE 41-13 retains the Enhanced
Performance Objective and Limited Performance Objective
categories.
The Basic Performance Objective for Existing Buildings
(BPOE) uses the BSE-1E and BSE-2E hazard levels. Unlike
ASCE 41-06, the BPOE is not a single performance
objective, but rather a table of different performance
objectives based on the Risk Category that would be assigned
to a building. The decision to map the performance
objectives to Risk Categories was made because the
widespread use of ASCE 31-03 and ASCE 41-06 had led to
numerous building codes, various federal state and local
jurisdictions, and engineers to do their own mapping of the
Risk Categories to performance objectives, without
consistency. The committee felt that it was important for
there to be some standardization of this practice and therefore
it was brought into the BPOE. Table 3 summarizes the
BPOE.
This set of performance objectives are intended to be the one
that approximates the performance objectives within ASCE
31-03 which accepted a higher level of risk. The BPOE is
used for all three tiers of evaluations. With Tier 1 and Tier 2
only requiring evaluation at the BSE-1E level and Tier 3
requiring evaluation at both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E levels.

5
SEAOC 2012 CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

Table 3 – Basic Performance Objective for Existing Buildings (BPOE)

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

Risk Category BSE-1E BSE-1E BSE-1E BSE-2E

Collapse Prevention
Life Safety Structural Life Safety Structural
Life Safety Structural Structural Performance
Performance Performance
I & II Performance Nonstructural
Life Safety Nonstructural Life Safety Nonstructural
Life Safety Nonstructural Performance Not
Performance Performance
Performance (3-C) Considered
(3-C) (3-C)
(5-D)

Damage Control Structural Limited Safety

See Note 1 for Structural Damage Control Structural
Performance Structural Performance
Performance Performance
Position Retention Nonstructural
III Position Retention Position Retention
Nonstructural Performance Not
Nonstructural Performance Nonstructural Performance
Performance Considered
(2-B) (2-B)
(2-B) (4-D)

Immediate Occupancy Life Safety Structural

Immediate Occupancy Immediate Occupancy
Structural Performance Performance
Structural Performance Structural Performance
Position Retention Nonstructural
IV Position Retention Position Retention
Nonstructural Performance Not
Nonstructural Performance Nonstructural Performance
Performance Considered
(1-B) (1-B)
(1-B) (3-D)

The reason that Tier 1 and Tier 2 only need to have one
seismic hazard check while Tier 3 requires a check of two
hazard levels relates to the fundamental basis of the
deficiency-based procedures. The deficiency-based
procedures are based on decades of observations of actual
damage to buildings in major earthquakes worldwide. The
original documentation is contained in ATC 14. Because of a
lack of specific strong motion records, all events were
considered equal even though many were likely BSE 2 level
events. It is fair to conclude that since the procedures were
calibrated to a BSE 1 level event and many of the buildings
actually experienced a BSE 2 level events successfully, only
a one level check would be needed.
It is important to recognize that the inventory of damaged
buildings used to infer the deficiency-based procedure was
mostly of moderate size and height. The committee felt that a
similar limitation was needed to designate when the
deficiency-only procedures could be used. A number of
criteria regarding the building’s size, structural system, and
configuration was developed which must be met in order for
one to be able to use the deficiency-based provisions.
However, for a Tier 3 systematic procedure which is intended
to be used universally regardless of the building
configuration, size or structural system, the dual-earthquake
check is necessary to ensure sufficient robustness and margin
of safety beyond the design-level earthquake. This covers
those buildings which are outside of the historic data.
The concept of permitting the user to perform a seismic
retrofit or target an evaluation to a level greater or less than
the Basic Performance Objective has been retained. The
Enhanced Performance Objective remains as any level
greater than the BPOE. Some example application of an
Enhanced Performance Objective are retrofitting for a Risk
Category higher than the building would normally be
assigned, an evaluation using a higher seismic hazard than
stipulated, or a retrofit to a higher structural or nonstructural
performance level using the same earthquake hazards as the
BPOE table calls for.

6

ASCE 41-13 retains the Limited Performance Objective and
keeps the two specific subsets – Reduced Performance
Objective and Partial Retrofit Objective. The Reduced
Performance Objective is the opposite of the Enhanced
Performance Objective. The evaluation or retrofit targets a
performance level, uses a seismic hazard, or is for a Risk
Category less than the BPOE. The Partial Retrofit Objective
means that some, but not all of the seismic deficiencies are
mitigated.
A new performance objective included in ASCE 41-13 is the
Basic Performance Objective Equivalent to New Building
Standards (BPON). This set of performance objectives is
intended to provide a link between ASCE 7 and ASCE 41
when a seismic evaluation or upgrade is required to be
equivalent to a new building. The performance objectives
are based on the Risk Category that would be assigned to the
building based on the applicable building code or ASCE 7.
Table 4 presents the BPON.
Because the BPON is designed to be equivalent to a new
building, only a full-building systematic evaluation or
upgrade can be used. The seismic hazards used for this
performance level are the BSE-1N and BSE-2N. While there
have not been definitive studies done on the specific
equivalence between the two standards, the committee felt
that by targeting Collapse Prevention in the MCER, one is
achieve the similar performance to what is spelled out in the
commentary in the 2009 NEHRP Provisions. Specifically,
Table C11.5-1 in the 2009 NEHRP Provisions was used as
the basis for the BPON.

Table 4 – Basic Performance Objective Equivalent to New Building Standards (BPON)

Seismic Hazard Level
Risk Category BSE-1N BSE-2N

Life Safety Structural

Collapse Prevention Structural
Performance;
Performance;
I & II
Position Retention Nonstructural
Nonstructural Performance Not
Performance
Considered
(5-D)
(3-B)

Damage Control Structural Limited Safety Structural

Performance; Performance;

III Position Retention Nonstructural Nonstructural Performance Not

Performance Considered

(2-B) (4-D)

Immediate Occupancy Structural Life Safety Structural

Performance; Performance;

IV Operational Nonstructural Nonstructural Performance Not

Performance Considered

(1-A) (3-D)

7
Structural Performance Levels
The Life Safety performance level is where nonstructural
The three main structural performance levels, Immediate components are damaged and dislodged from their position,
Occupancy (IO), Life Safety (LS), and Collapse Prevention but the consequences of the damage do not pose a risk to life
(CP) have not been changed from ASCE 41-06. There are, safety. Major falling hazards are still anchored. The ASCE
however, two new, specifically defined, performance levels – 41-13 Life Safety level is significantly less than what was
Damage Control and Limited Safety. Those new levels were termed Life Safety in ASCE 31-03 and 41-06. To determine
necessary to describe the target structural performance levels what was a true life safety hazard the committee relied upon
for Risk Category III structures in both the BPOE and FEMA-E74 (2011) and their collective experiences observing
BPON. Damage Control is the level halfway between IO and damage following major earthquakes.
LS and Limited Safety is the level halfway between LS and
CP.
Deficiency-Based Procedures
The performance ranges between IO and LS and LS and CP,
which were defined in ASCE 41-06 as Damage Control and There were many updates to the deficiency-based procedures.
Limited Safety, have been renamed Enhanced Safety The most significant update was the limitations on when
Performance Range and Reduced Safety Performance Range these types of procedures could be used. In ASCE 31-03,
in order to avoid the confusion with the newly created there was a table which indicated under which height Tier 1
performance levels. and deficiency-only Tier 2 Evaluation would be permitted.
There was a similar table in ASCE 41-06 Chapter 10 which
Nonstructural Performance Levels indicated when the simplified rehabilitation, which just
corrected ASCE 31-03 identified deficiencies, could be used.
There were significant changes to the nonstructural That concept was retained, but most of the height limits were
performance levels. There were two main reasons for the increased. Also, as stated earlier, the same table now applies
changes. The first was the recognition that many of the items to both evaluation and upgrade. Table 5 contains some
identified in ASCE 31-03 and ASCE 41-06 as life safety examples of the changes for systems in regions of high
hazard have never been documented in past earthquakes to seismicity.
actually be life safety hazards. The second one was the
realization that the performance levels in ASCE 31-03 and Table 5 – Height Limits for Deficiency-Base Procedures in
ASCE 41-06 did not match those in ASCE 7. High Seismicity for Life Safety Performance
ASCE 31-03 ASCE 41-06 ASCE 41-13
Steel
In ASCE 41-13, there are now only three specific Moment 3 3 8
nonstructural performance levels – Operational, Position Frames
Retention, and Life Safety. These revised performance levels Steel
simplify the nonstructural provisions in ASCE 41-13 and Braced 6 3 8
make them consistent with ASCE 7. Frames
Concrete
Not
The Operational performance level is the same as was Moment 6 8
Permitted
defined in ASCE 41-06. The nonstructural components are Frames
in a state following the earthquake such that they can resume Concrete
6 3 8
their pre-earthquake function. This performance level is Shear Walls
Light Frame 2 2 4
consistent with what the intended performance of
Tilt-up 2 2 2
nonstructural components should be when Ip = 1.5 in ASCE 7
URM No Limit 2 4
based on the 2009 NEHRP Provisions’ commentary.

The Position Retention performance level is where the
nonstructural elements are damaged and may not function,
but they are secured in place following the earthquake. This
performance level is intended to match the intended
performance of nonstructural components when Ip = 1.0 in
ASCE 7 based on the 2009 NEHRP Commentary. This
means that elements that do not require bracing per ASCE 7
because of the building being in a lower seismic hazard area
will now not require bracing per ASCE 41-13.
The increase in height limits came primarily from the
additional experiences that have come from observing
coming buildings in major earthquakes over the past 20 years.
Prior to this update, theses tables had never really been
reviewed or revised since they were originally conceived in
the mid 1990’s.
Another major change was when mixed systems can be
evaluated and retrofit using deficiency-based procedures. A

8
mixed system, in ASCE 41-13 context, is a system which has
different lateral force resisting elements in one direction.
Examples could be a tilt-up shear wall building with an
interior steel braced frame or a seven-story steel moment
frame over a three story concrete shear wall building. There
are now explicit provisions in ASCE 41 when you can
consider those types of buildings in a deficiency-based
evaluation or retrofit. When the mixed system is a
horizontal combination of systems, the performance level is
Life Safety or lower, the diaphragm is flexible, and the
building is below the more restrictive height limit of the
different systems one can use the deficiency-based
procedures. For vertical combinations, the performance level
is Life Safety or lower, and the building is below the more
restrictive height limit of the different systems one can use
the deficiency-based procedures
Tier 1 Screening
There were major organizational changes to the Tier 1
Checklists. A significant editorial effort was undertaken to
simply and streamline the Tier 1 Screening. The first major
change was the creation of a Basic Configuration Checklist,
which contains all the statements for Very Low seismicity,
about building configuration regularity and the geologic and
foundation components, which were common to all building
types and unnecessarily repeated in each ASCE 31-03
checklist. Following that, there are checklists specific to each
common building type.
All the structural checklists were reorganized so that there is
one checklist for Life Safety and one separate, stand-alone
checklist for Immediate Occupancy for each common
building type. Also, there are no longer separate checklists
for buildings with stiff or flexible diaphragms. Lastly, the
checklist statements are ordered such that the items for Low
Seismicity come first, followed by Moderate and finally with
High. Therefore someone evaluating a building in a region of
Moderate seismicity need not read through a number of
statements that don’t apply.
The nonstructural checklist was condensed down to one
single checklist. Each checklist statement has a marker
which indicates which level of seismicity and performance
level (LS or IO) the statement is required to be checked for.
In addition to the editorial changes, there were a number of
technical updates to the checklists. Most of the technical
updates related to paring back the Life Safety checklist
requirements. The committee undertook a detailed review of
all the checklist statements, questioning whether each
statement was really an observed life safety issue or not. This
lead to a number of statements being moved from LS to IO-
only or being revised to address the life safety concern in a
more specific way. Additionally, the change in the definition
of Nonstructural Life Safety and coordination of levels of
seismicity with ASCE 7 led to a significant paring back of the
nonstructural Life Safety checklist.
Recognizing that existing buildings can vary from what their
drawings indicate due to construction deviations, alterations
or just deterioration, the committee added more detailed
direction on minimum on-site investigation and condition
assessment. All the checklist statements related to condition
assessment have been moved to this section. The purpose of
this section is to place the responsibility on the evaluating
engineer for verifying the condition of the structure and
confirming the completeness and adequacy of the available
drawings.
The last major change to the Tier 1 Screening was an
updating of the Benchmark Building table and an expansion
of the requirements for benchmarking a building. The table
which indicates what the earliest code a building could be
designed to which permits it to be deemed to comply with a
specific performance objective was updated. Specifically, the
benchmark year for concrete buildings was moved up from
the 1976 UBC to the 1994 UBC due in part to observations
from the 2011 Christchurch Earthquakes. There were also a
series of requirements set forth that one must meet in order to
benchmark a building. They relate to verifying the accuracy
and completeness of the existing drawings with respect the
benchmark code, minimum field verification of the existing
drawings, condition assessment, and a confirmation of no
geologic hazards at the site.
Tier 2 Evaluation/Retrofit
Conceptually there were no major changes to the Tier 2
procedure. The crux of the procedure is still to simply
evaluate the identified potential deficiencies from the Tier 1
screening or to retrofit them. The major change, however, is
in the procedures used to do that.
As discussed earlier, in an effort to bring consistency to the
evaluation and retrofit procedures and for consistency
between Tier 2 and Tier 3, the simplified analytical methods
of ASCE 31-03 were abandoned for the more detailed
procedures within ASCE 41. Recognizing that this was a
significant change, the chapter which presents the Tier 2
procedures was completely re-written to provide as much
guidance as possible to the specific sections of the analysis,
foundation, or material chapters where the user needs to go to
find the information to carry out the specific evaluation or
retrofit procedure for each specific deficiency.
9
The material found in Chapter 4 of ASCE 31-03 which
provided commentary on the Tier 1 and Tier 2 deficiencies
has been retained, but moved to Appendix A.
Technical Updates
While the combination and reformatting of ASCE 31-03 and
ASCE 41-06 took up a considerable amount of the
committee’s time, there were still a number of significant
technical changes that were made to the provisions. Chapters
8 through 14 contain the bulk of the analysis procedures,
material and foundation modeling parameters and acceptance
criteria. The format of those chapters is essentially
unchanged from ASCE 41-06. All the technical updates have
been incorporated into those chapters.
The following is a brief, high-level summary of the technical
changes to those chapters.
Analysis
The most significant change to the analysis chapter was the
expansion of the nonlinear response history analysis
provisions. There have been significant advances in this
analysis method and it has found more widespread use within
the profession since the provisions were originally written in
FEMA 273. The new provisions seek to clarify the number
of ground motion records needed, how to select and apply
damping, and how to apply the output to evaluation. There
was clarification made to permit the modeling of force-
controlled elements in the nonlinear model and permitting
them to fail and allow force redistribution provided gravity
load support is not compromised.
There were also some modifications made to allow for
greater use of the linear procedures. In ASCE 41-06 there
were certain irregularities which prohibited the use of the
linear procedures. Those irregularity triggers have been
relaxed.
There was also a significant change made to the knowledge-
factor, which reduces the element capacities based on a lack
of testing and other information about the building. Now if
the user has a good set of construction drawings and is
evaluating or upgrading to Life Safety or lower performance,
then the knowledge-factor can be taken as 0.9 instead of 0.75.
Geotechnical/Foundation
There were three major updates to the Geotechnical and
Foundation chapter. The first was revisions to the
liquefaction section and a new structural analysis procedure
to assess the consequences of liquefaction. The second was a
10
significant update of the foundation rocking procedures and
yielding at the soil-foundation interface. The last was an
update to the soil-structure interaction provisions.
The most significant update to the liquefaction procedures is
a new three-step structural analysis procedure to assess the
consequences of liquefaction. Observations from the 2010
and 2011 Christchurch Earthquakes were that numerous
structures were damaged by liquefaction, but did not collapse.
The new liquefaction analysis procedures allow the engineer
to first evaluate the structure assuming no liquefaction occurs
and then a second time with ground motions and foundation
parameters that have been altered due to liquefaction.
Following that analysis, the anticipated lateral spread and
differential settlements are imposed on the structure and it is
assessed to determine if it can remain stable under those.
There has been a significant change to how foundation
rocking and yielding at the soil-foundation interface are
addressed. ASCE 41-06 decoupled the two actions and had
separate checks for each. In reality this never occurs. If the
soil is stiff, rocking will dominate the response. If the soil is
soft, then yielding of the soil will govern. However, neither
will occur independent of the other. The new rocking
procedures provide m-factor tables and nonlinear acceptance
criteria for these actions as a function of the gravity load on
the foundation and the stiffness of the underlying soil.
The soil-foundation-structure interaction (SFSI) material,
which was first introduced in ASCE 41-06 and based on
material from FEMA 440 (2005), was reviewed and revised.
NIST funded a significant effort related to SFSI which will be
published soon as ATC-84 (2012). Based on work done in
that project, the kinematic effects provisions (base-slab
averaging and embedment) were revised and some limitations
placed on them.
Steel
The only major changes to the steel section were the
introduction of provisions for buckling restrained braced
frames and the modification of some of the acceptance
criteria for braced frames.
Concrete
There were only minor chances to the concrete chapter
related to minimum reinforcement in shear walls, biaxial
column effects, rebar testing requirements and concrete core
sampling requirements.
Wood & Cold-Formed Steel
The Wood and Cold-Formed Steel (CFS) Light Frame
provisions had some formatting changes. Provisions for
wood and CFS were separated. Additionally, the applicable
reference standards where one can find capacities for wood
and CFS elements were updated.
Masonry
There were some significant changes to the masonry chapter,
many of which were prompted by observations from the 2010
and 2011 Christchurch Earthquakes. Bed joint sliding was
reintroduced as a deformation-controlled action. The
provisions and acceptance criteria for wall and pier rocking
were updated. There were also updates related to diagonal
tension, out-of-plane actions, and anchorage to masonry
walls.
Seismic Isolation & Energy Dissipation
Both the Seismic Isolation and Energy Dissipation provisions
were revised. The provisions for Seismic Isolation were
revised to permit the use of upper and lower-bound isolator
properties in design and then specifying tolerances as
opposed to requiring testing of the isolators before design
could be completed. Along with this change were changes to
the quality control requirements for isolator manufacturers.
There were also modifications to the design and quality
control requirements for energy dissipation devices. Lastly,
the peer review requirements were reduced from a panel to
one independent peer reviewer.
System-Specific Procedures
One of the last changes to ASCE 41-13 was the creation of a
new chapter for system-specific procedures. The impetus for
this chapter was what to do about the special procedure for
unreinforced masonry buildings found in ASCE 31-03. That
procedure has been in use for many years and the committee
wished to retain it. Because the procedure is specific to a
system which has a combination of elements of different
materials, it could not be easily brought into any one of the
material chapters. Therefore, it was placed in a new chapter.
The intention is that as more of these system specific
procedures are developed they would eventually be placed
into this chapter. The requirement being that the procedure
must be able to be utilized in conjunction with a seismic
hazard level specified in the standard and the performance
target of the procedure must be declared in terms of one of
the levels in the standard.
Consistency with ASCE 7
In addition to creating the BPON, referencing the MCER, and
aligning the nonstructural performance levels, the committee
made several changes to better align ASCE 41-13 with
ASCE 7. The most significant of those changes related to the
seismic hazard science, the site specific response spectra, and
response history scaling. Regardless of the return period
chosen for the seismic hazard, ASCE 41-13 requires the same
attenuation relations and other ground motion science be
used as is required in ASCE 7. The seismic hazard
parameters should all be “Maximum Direction.” When a site
specific response spectrum is used, the scaling with respect to
the USGS response spectrum will be the same as in ASCE 7.
Another very significant change to align ASCE 41-13 with
ASCE 7-10 was the correlation of ASCE 41-13 Levels of
Seismicity with the ASCE 7-10 Seismic Design Categories
(SDC). This eliminates confusion and helps greatly in the
coordination of the nonstructural performance levels. Below
is the new ASCE 41 Levels of Seismicity with the
corresponding ASCE 7 SDC.
Very Low SDC A
Low SDC B
Moderate SDC C
High SDC D, E, & F
There are some other modifications throughout ASCE 41 to
align with ASCE 7. The out-of-plane wall anchorage force
equations have been updated to correlate with the changes
that were made to ASCE 7-10. There were some changes
made to align the nonlinear response history provisions of the
two standards.
Summary
When published, ASCE 41-13 will represent a new state of
the practice in seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing
buildings. The new standard combines seismic evaluation
and retrofit into one document and brings consistency to the
process. The new standard has incorporated many technical
advances which have occurred in the past six years along
with lessons learned from many recent earthquakes.
11
Acknowledgements
Over 100 practitioners, academics, and industry
representatives participated in the ASCE/SEI Standards
Committee for Seismic Rehabilitation. Unfortunately space
prohibits listing everyone, but their names can be found in
ASCE 41-13. However the enormous effort that was
undertaken to combine and update the standards could not
have been accomplished without the painstaking volunteer
work of several key individuals. Peter Somers and Brian
Kehoe each led subcommittees and were members of the
steering committee with the paper authors. Fred Turner,
Mark Moore, Chris Tokas, Charles Roeder, Ken Ellwood,
Phil Line, Bonnie Manley, and Ron Mayes all led various
technical issue teams. Mike Mahoney from FEMA provided
support for the effort which greatly moved the process along.
Jennifer Goupil, Jim Rossberg, Paul Sgambati, and Lee
Kusek of the American Society of Civil Engineers were
instrumental in moving the standard along and allowed the
committee to meet its extremely aggressive schedule.
References
CBC, 2010, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 2
– California Building Code, California Building Standards
Commission, Sacramento, California.
FEMA 178, 1992, NEHRP Handbook for Seismic Evaluation
of Existing Buildings, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA 273, 1997, Guidelines to the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Existing Buildings, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA 310, 1998, Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of
Buildings: A Prestandard, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA 356, 2000, Prestandard and Commentary for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA 440, 2005, Improvements of Nonlinear Static Seismic
Analysis Procedures, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, D.C.

ASCE 31-03, 2003, Seismic Evaluation of Existing FEMA 750, 2009, NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions
Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, for New Buildings and Other Structures, Federal Emergency
Virginia. Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

ASCE 41-06, 2006, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing FEMA E-74, 2011, Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural
Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Earthquake Damage – A Practical Guide, Federal
Virginia. Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

ASCE, 2008, Supplement No. 1 to ASCE 41-06 Seismic

Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, American Society of
Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.

ASCE 41-13, 2013 Publication Anticipated Seismic

Evaluation and Upgrade of Existing Buildings, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia. Public
Comment Edition available through the American Society of
Civil Engineers.

ASCE 7-10, 2010, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and

Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, Virginia.

ATC 14, 1987, Evaluating the Seismic Resistance of Existing

Buildings, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City,
California.

ATC 83, 2012, Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction for

Building Structures. National Institute of Science and
Technology. Gaithersburg, Maryland.

12